BBC On The Record - Broadcast: 03.12.00



==================================================================================== NB. THIS TRANSCRIPT WAS TYPED FROM A TRANSCRIPTION UNIT RECORDING AND NOT COPIED FROM AN ORIGINAL SCRIPT; BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF MIS-HEARING AND THE DIFFICULTY, IN SOME CASES, OF IDENTIFYING INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS, THE BBC CANNOT VOUCH FOR ITS ACCURACY ==================================================================================== ON THE RECORD RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION: BBC ONE DATE: 03.12.00 ==================================================================================== JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon. The Transport Minister has been given the job of creating order from the chaos of Britain's railways. I'll be asking him how he's going to do it. Europe's leaders are meeting in Nice this week. I'll be asking the Shadow Foreign Secretary why he wants Britain to say no to the rest of Europe. And Europe's agriculture ministers are meeting tomorrow. I'll be asking ours what he wants to do about the spread of mad cow disease. That's after the news read by Sion Willioms. NEWS HUMPHRYS: Europe's leaders are off to Nice this week to find a way of making the European Union bigger - and keep it working. Why do the Tories want to block all the changes it's said are needed. BSE is spreading across the Continent. Can the politicians agree on how to stop it? JOHN HUMPHRYS: But first the railways. Every other day there's a new horror story about the state of the railways. And there seems no end in sight to it all. Well now the government has put the Transport Minister, Lord McDonald, in charge of a committee that will meet regularly to sort things out. How can a politician succeed where the railwaymen themselves have failed? Lord MacDonald is with me. Good afternoon . MACDONALD: Good afternoon. HUMPHRYS: What's the committee actually going to do, because it's hard to see what you can do that the industry itself without your help, cannot do.? MACDONALD: Well, we're simply trying to co-ordinate, we're in there in a sense as a support group because there is a smaller management than you would imagine in Railtrack. They're called upon from all different angles to report to this group or that group, so that we've done is get half a dozen of these groups round the one table so they can share the agenda and I or the permanent secretary can sit there and listen to the concerns that are expressed and try to get those sorted out as smoothly as possible, in order that the Railtrack management can get on with the job which is the rail recovery plan for the whole network HUMPHRYS: But we seem to have seen an awful lot of these meetings over the last months with ministers, whether it's you or John Prescott or whoever it is there, they have emergency summits and God knows what else. Nothing seems to get any better, indeed the on the contrary things seem to be getting worse. MACDONALD: Well it does get better. At the moment we've got about I think about seventy-five per cent of the journeys in the Inter-City routes running, and about fifty per cent of those are coming in on time. That's a bit better than it was, and in the other areas we've got a much higher incidence of trains running, about ninety per cent and about seventy-five per cent arriving within ten minutes, and about half the franchises say they're running close to normal, so it's not total chaos everyone. There's about twenty per cent of passengers who come off the network but it is getting better, they're lifting I think almost three hundred speed restrictions over the next days and couple of weeks. HUMPHRYS: Three hundred? MACDONALD: Well, a hundred-and-forty going up from forty to sixty, and another two hundred going up from twenty to forty. HUMPHRYS: So when will they all be lifted by then? MACDONALD: I would think about the end of January, beginning of February, but we can't be too sure on that because they're still in the process of discovering some of the problems in the network. They've covered two-thirds of it, the last third is still to be done although that's the least problematic third of it if I can put it that way. But they reckon they've almost bottomed it out. HUMPHRYS: But we still don't have is a proper time-table. I mean we had one way back when. It was abandoned when all those problems happened, Hatfield happened, all the rest of it. We don't have a proper time-table, we don't have a real emergency time-table to which the train operating companies are committed. They guarantee that this is the time-table against which we can measure them. When are we going to have that? MACDONALD: Well, they say they have a time-table, it's the one that will be in place until the Christmas time-table comes in about the seventeenth or eighteenth of December, and by the way you'll know about the Christmas time-table I think it's on Tuesday they're announcing that, and then after the Christmas break, the New Year break the new time-table will come in and that will be I think a lot more efficient than the one we've got at the moment. HUMPHRYS: So, I'm slightly puzzled by this. Then what - because we were promised that we'd have this within a fortnight of Hatfield weren't we and now it's what, five weeks. MACDONALD: We were hit by flooding of course John which didn't help. HUMPHRYS: That was a problem, though it wasn't everywhere. I mean it was only limited areas. Now, this time-table, we're going to have a time-table that will come in, will be announced on Tuesday and that'll be good until...? MACDONALD: Well, that's the Christmas time-table that comes in then, and the Christmas time-table runs let's see, from the eighteenth of December to the seventh of January, and then the post-holiday time-table comes in, and it's in on the - it'll come in - it'll be announced on the fifth January and it will run on through January and February. HUMPHRYS: So the one that comes in for Christmas, the Christmas time-table as you describe it, that is guaranteed. In other words if I try and catch a train to Manchester and it's more than whatever it is late, according to that particular time-table, I will be able to go for compensation they way I would have been able to do six months ago? MACDONALD: Indeed. If you can bear with me I'll just give you some of the figures that I've been given by the companies here. They reckon on the Inter-City they've got seventy-six per cent running as normal on the present time table, the one that'll be in place up till Christmas. Of those seventy-six about half of them are coming in within ten minutes. The other half are more than ten minutes late. On the London commuting and the other commuting lines and other lines around the country it's actually much higher than that, it's over ninety per cent of trains that are being set out as normal on the time-table and three-quarters of those are running inside the ten minute delay. HUMPHRYS: But I mean the problem is that there are going to be far fewer trains aren't there. I mean this is the difficulty, so there are going to be fewer passengers, both GNER and Virgin say that. MACDONALD: Well, not far fewer. Again, what I've got..... HUMPHRYS: GNER said less than half the passengers they'd be able to cope with. MACDONALD: Well, what we've got here is eighteen-thousand three hundred trains run each day .... HUMPHRYS: Normally you mean. MACDONALD: Normally, and about six hundred they tell me are being cancelled formally and then some others are being cancelled. But ninety-five per cent of those trains are in the current time-table as normal. HUMPHRYS: Sorry, if a third of them, you said eighteen hundred and then six hundred being cancelled. A third are being cancelled, it's hard to see how they're going to carry anything like the number of passengers that you just described. MACDONALD: No, of the eighteen-thousand, three hundred per day they reckon that about ninety-five percent of those trains will be in the current timetable, the ones that we've got at the moment. They're supposed to be working as normal. Those trains are supposed to be leaving the station but what I'm saying is that on the Intercity lines only half of them are arriving within ten minutes of when they should but it's a much better record than on some of the commuter lines and other lines around the country. HUMPHRYS: On the other hand that leaves the other half which could be absolute mayhem couldn't it. I mean there are no promises are there..... MACDONALD: Well of those eighteen-thousand, three hundred I'm told that the number that are over thirty-eight minutes late per day are about five hundred. So it's about three per cent. It's not as much as the overall chaos, no progress being made headlines would suggest. HUMPHRYS: Well yes but if you're planning to travel over Christmas it still sounds a bit dodgy doesn't it. I mean you hear 'post early for Christmas' you might as well say, 'travel early for Christmas' or 'Don't travel for Christmas. Stay at home for Christmas'? MACDONALD: Well obviously a lot of people have stayed at home. One of the curious things that's happened here is that they reckon about twenty per cent of people who would normally travel on the rail haven't travelled and there's about two point seven million travel every day so you're probably losing something between a quarter of a million and half a million people not going by rail. But if you look at the number of cars in the country, there's twenty-seven million cars, two point seven million people go by train each day, looks as though people aren't making journeys or they're hitching a lift in a car or they're maybe taking a 'bus. So what we've got as the Highways Agency this weekend has said there's only a one or two percent increase on the amount of traffic on our roads..... HUMPHRYS: It can make a huge difference though can't it - one or two per cent? MACDONALD: It can. But remember the headlines in the paper said "Twenty-five per cent...up in London. Ten per cent....." HUMPHRYS: It might be in London for all we know because if it was two per cent across the country it could be anything in London couldn't it. MACDONALD: As well as the Highways Agency we've actually got one hundred and sixty sites across the country where we look at traffic volumes and they don't show anything more than a couple of percentage increase and then the London Underground, where you would expect people to go obviously in the London commuting lines, the increase between September when Hatfield happened and this month is actually no greater this year than it was last year. So it's a bit counter intuitive, I know it goes against the received wisdom but I don't think there is this gridlock that the newspapers have been saying across the country. HUMPHRYS: But the problem is, isn't it, from your point of view, you've now... some people might say you've been a bit of a fall guy in this because you've been put in charge of this committee and you have these meetings. We were told at one stage you were going to be meeting them every single morning and cracking the whip and all the rest of it. If things don't get hugely better, and you can't absolutely guarantee that they're going to get hugely better, it's all going to look like a bit of a PR stunt isn't it? MACDONALD: Well it's not. Really it's a group to try and build confidence by getting everybody around the table. You'll have heard Sir Alistair Moreton who is the Chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority say that the industry had got a bit spooked, especially Railtrack, they'd lost confidence and that was why they'd perhaps over reacted and that's certainly the feeling of the train operating companies. So what I'm trying to do is...... HUMPHRYS: Over reacted by putting on too many speed restrictions....? MACDONALD: Putting on too many speed limits. It's understandable because the people working on the line are probably saying - 'If I'm making a mistake here, if I'm not being cautious enough, could I end up causing another Hatfield? Could I end up perhaps having legal action taken against me?' So we've got to try and make sure that the Health and Safety Executive, the Strategic Rail Authority, the Rail Regulator, the passengers' councils, they all sit round the same table with us. It won't need to be every day. It'll be as required. Railtrack were standing shoulder to shoulder with me on Friday saying 'This is helping us' because it is supposed to help build confidence and their ability to make serious decisions and the Health and Safety executive have been working closely with Railtrack, it came over in our meetings and it's helped lift some of the speed restrictions and speed things up. HUMPHRYS: Talk about being spooked, it may be that you guys are getting a wee bit spooked at the moment aren't you because people will blame you. I mean the way you have now taken responsibility with this whole thing. If things don't improve really seriously, drastically between now and next May or whenever the election is, you'll cop the blame for it won't you? MACDONALD: Well the amount of frustration amongst passengers is huge and understandable and I believe the service they're getting is unacceptable and that's why you've got to have a government involvement. We believe that with the transport bill that became an act just last week there that if we put more powers in place it will be a more co-ordinated, more coherent network. We've also put a lot more money in place. There's sixty billion going in over the next ten years. So the money's there. The structures are there. What we need now are competent management of the network and to reduce a lot of the problems and Alistair Moreton has been working with other groups to try and reduce the frictions that have been in a system we inherited which is overly fragmented, incoherent and not working. HUMPHRYS: Ah well, yes. But that's the point, isn't it? Incoherent, fragmented, not working. But this is something that you are not going to change. I mean, the structure of the network, as far as one can tell, unless you can tell me differently this morning, the structure of the network, this extraordinary number of train operating companies, Railtrack, all those different people who service, look after the railway lines, the network and all the rest of it, all of that, as far as one can tell is going to stay the same. Maybe what you ought to be doing, instead of going off to these meetings with Railtrack, is sitting down and working out a new structure for the whole railway system. MACDONALD: Well the, what the railway system has lacked has been investment, certainly over the last twenty years, as you know, Mrs Thatcher had actually an ideological aversion to the railways, she... HUMPHRYS: ...ah but it's more than that, it's more than that... BOTH SPEAKING TOGETHER HUMPHRYS: ...it's the way they were privatised that you so strongly criticised, you've just done it again now, and quite right too. A lot of people will say, if it was wrong, what they did, what the last government, if that was so wrong, why are you not saying, right, let's have another look at it and do something differently. Clearly it isn't working. MACDONALD: Because we've strengthened the powers of the rail regulator, we've brought in a strategic rail authority, and most important of all, we are making sixty billion available, because the industry has lacked investment for a very long time. I won't blame just the Tories in the last twenty years, it's lacked investment for the last fifty years. Now, we're doing something about that, but we want that money to be spent quickly and efficiently. And that's the job now. So... HUMPHRYS: ...yes but, how can it be? This is the point I'm making. If you have a structure that doesn't work, if by your own definition this thing is incoherent and doesn't work, throwing money at it is not necessarily going to solve it. Why do you seem to be so scared of saying..., you've said, it's a mess, effectively, this thing is a mess. We'd have never done it like this. Why therefore do you not say, so let's do it differently, alright, there'll be a bit of upheaval, but let's do it differently. MACDONALD: Now we are doing it differently, we've got Alastair Morton and the Strategic Rail Authority... HUMPHRYS: ...a body of bureaucrats, that's all. MACDONALD: No, the re-franchising and the twenty-five different franchises on the, the network, we're putting the money into Railtrack, much tougher regulation, better scrutiny of where the public money is and how it's being used. The alternative John, would be years of upheaval and that's not what the industry needs. We believe we can bring coherence where there's been fragmentation, we can bring investment where there's been neglect. HUMPHRYS: Well, alright. You're not going to do that. And yet here you are, you mentioned London Underground earlier, here you are. You've looked at the mess that the railway network is in. You're now looking at London Underground and you're saying, we're going to impose the same structure on London Underground that was responsible for this almighty mess on the railway network. Why? When everybody says it's gonna be a complete shambles, even worse many people say. Why do it? MACDONALD: No. Well, we're not doing that. What we're doing is leaving the operation of London Underground and the control of safety in the public sector. What we are trying to do is to ensure that private sector expertise and disciplines are brought in for the maintenance and renewal of, of the track and systems. HUMPHRYS: Separating the operators and the track, exactly what happened in the railways and exactly the problems that we have there. MACDONALD: But in a very different way from the railways, and we believe that that will put in again, investment in very, very large quantities. We're looking at investment of about thirteen billion going into the London Tube. Again, infrastructure there's been very neglected. What we're trying to do is with eighteen years of neglect, with the kind of stable economy we've got at the moment is to get investment into the infrastructure in Britain, not just Health and Education, but in Transport in particular. And the remarkable thing is that in the polls, despite all the problems of, of recent times, the majority of people still say, it was the fault of the previous government of what they did to the railways. HUMPHRYS: Well, we'll see what happens. Lord MacDonald, thank you very much indeed. HUMPHRYS: Now the leaders of the European Union are meeting in Nice at the end of the week for a summit which is meant to pave the way for other countries to join the Union, thirteen altogether. Everybody says enlargement is a good idea. But then everybody knows that it can't happen unless Europe overhauls the way it operates. It's bad enough already. The machinery would simply seize up, they say, without some big changes, specifically getting countries to agree that more decisions should be taken by majority voting, rather than one country being able to stop everything by using a veto. As Paola Buonadonna reports, that's not going to be easy, especially for Britain. PAOLA BUONADONNA: Before they left they called themselves the Magnificent Seven - on a mission to the East....destination Bratislava. In the end only three made - it, just as in the film. The others taken out, not by bandits, but by a difficult vote at Westminster. The Minister for Europe, Keith Vaz, says Britain will do all it can to welcome new members into the European Union. But courtesy visits will not by themselves speed up enlargement - the future of the whole project is in the balance at next week's summit of EU leaders, during which essential reforms have to be agreed. The Labour Government will be under pressure from the Conservatives to say no, while the rest of Europe will push it to compromise to achieve its goal of a wider Union. KEITH VAZ, MP: Enlargement is the key, that's why the Nice agenda is so important. Without Nice being successful we cannot enlarge. DICK BENSCHOP: If fifteen Prime Ministers come in with the idea 'I can do nothing', where do we end up then? And that's what everybody has to consider. We really want enlargement of the European Union. MENZIES CAMPBELL MP: In spite of the rhetoric, there's always been the feeling that Britain has not really signed up for the project, and one of the things Mr Blair can achieve at Nice is to demonstrate that the rhetoric is supported by a real commitment to ensuring that the Treaty of Nice contains the provisions necessary for enlargement. PAOLA BUONADONNA: This trip to Slovakia kicks off a series of visits by British ministers to Eastern European. The government has made progress selling the idea of a co-operative Britain to Europe. But it hasn't been quite as successful selling Europe to Britain. Tony Blair had hoped his rapid reaction force initiative would show Britain leading in Europe. But stung by criticism of it, that it is a European army - he was forced to downplay it. Britain needs the Nice summit to be a success - but whatever Tony Blair agrees to will be portrayed as accepting further European integration - and he could be forced on the defensive again. VAZ: I don't think we're being defensive. I'm quite happy to come out kicking for Europe because I believe that, this country is stronger in Europe and Europe is stronger because Britain is there. I don't think it's defensive at all. We are restating a policy that we've had for the last three-and-a-half years, that this government is pro-Europe and pro-reform. CAMPBELL: The government is paying the penalty for it's failure since nineteen-ninety-seven to put the European case sufficiently positively. The events of the last two weeks or so, demonstrate that the government has failed to persuade public opinion in this country sufficiently. BUONADONNA: The EU says the aim of the Nice summit is to reform its institutions and decision-making to make them more efficient and able to cope with as many as thirteen new members. Larger countries are willing to give up one of their two commissioners, provided the smaller countries allow them the votes in the council of ministers, which would more accurately reflect the size of their population. But the most intimidating issue for Britain is giving up the national veto. Most of the fifteen countries of the EU and the Commission want more decisions to be taken by Qualified Majority Voting or QMV, meaning no one country can hold up agreement. Already eighty per cent of EU decisions are taken like this, but now France, which currently has the presidency, has tabled a further fifty items where the veto could be lost. The Conservatives say they're against any loss of the veto but the Government is only ruling out further QMV in six key areas. VAZ: The Conservative party when it was in government, when Mr Maude signed the Maastricht Treaty, accepted Qualified Majority Voting in thirty new areas. Combined with the Single European Act it reached a total of forty-two extensions under the last government. We will only agree to it when it's in the interest of our country. That means that we have those areas that we will not move on, such as tax, social security, border controls, treaty changes and other areas, such as the European Court of Justice, where we made it clear that QMV would be good. BUONADONNA: Sir Stephen Wall, Tony Blair's Chief EU Policy Co-ordinator and the Dutch Europe Minister Dick Benschop, agree on the need to streamline the European Union. But the Netherlands, together with most other member states, will put pressure on the British Government to agree on QMV in some aspects of taxation. BENSCHOP: On the tax issue you run into questions of competition and fair and unfair competition, within Europe, especially in the single market where we all take part in, so, on the exchange of information, on helping each other combating fraud, it would be very good to have a more easy way of making decisions through Qualified Majority Voting. But on the essential aspects of, of income taxation, on rates, and tariffs, that's a national question, and that remains with unanimity, also for the Netherlands. VAZ: Germany has it's own red line areas, where they're not prepared to give up the veto. France has it, in terms of external trade, so this is not just the United Kingdom, every single member of the European Union, every member state, has those areas where it is not prepared to move to Qualified Majority Voting, and they will fight tooth and nail, to make sure that happens. And Tony Blair and Robin Cook, will fight tooth and nail to make sure we act in Britain's interests. BENSCHOP: If nothing would happen on the fiscal aspect, I hope London would seriously consider other aspects as well, because if everybody is starting to block one or two items, then nothing will happen. And that's not tolerable. BUONADONNA: The city of Nice is still largely oblivious to the political drama about to unfold. The French Presidency had hoped the summit would give Europe a new lease of life, but with so many conflicting interests at stake, the reforms could be deadlocked. There are going to be battles over further QMV in the six big areas but outside these, the UK will give some ground. Next weekend here in Nice the British government looks set to accept the loss of the national veto in as many as twenty-seven new areas. Although many of the topics are about appointments and rules of procedure, any agreement on Qualified Majority Voting will be seen as a 'concession' to Europe by the Conservatives and sections of the media. PIERRE LELLOUCHE:; There is a problem of political leadership in England, because the Conservative party, unfortunately, and I say this as a sort of sister party to the Conservatives, the British Conservatives, and I told Mr Hague, and his colleagues I find it very sad to see the British Conservative party, espousing the cause of the anti-European cause. I think it's deadly and suicidal. And that of course makes it very hard for Blair to argue the case for Europe. And he's less and less convincing when he does it, and if he does it, because he's extremely discreet about it. I think, of the last half-dozen speeches he gave on Europe, only one was pronounced in England, the rest was given abroad. You, you cannot move forward if you don't explain to people what's going on here. BUONADONNA: And there's another problem for the government. France and almost all the other member states are determined to make it easier for smaller groups of countries to push ahead with integration even when other EU members don't want to participate - in jargon this is known as enhanced co-operation. Tony Blair has been resisting this - worried that it could lead to a two-speed Europe with Britain in the slow lane. It was in nineteen-ninety-seven at the Amsterdam summit that the concept of enhanced co-operation first surfaced. At Nice governments are likely to agree that no one country can prevent others moving ahead together. It looks as if Britain is willing to accept the loss of its veto on this matter, despite suggestions that enhanced co-operation could be used as a threat to leave the dissenters behind. BENSCHOP: Enhanced co-operation might have a preventive aspect, so to speak, if countries know that, and they stand in the way of a sensible compromise that the others might move along, but I won't use it as an instrument of blackmail in the normal decision-making procedure, that's not how we work together. But it is an element which we need in the future union, if there would really, really be a stale-mate and we would, we would have to move beyond that, then it can be used. VAZ: I have often asked, even my good friend Dick Benschop, what kinds of things would you use enhanced co-operation for. And as yet, those who have supported it, have not come up with a coherent answer. They say there are cases and they talk about it as being the last resort, but I think that we're happy to have this discussion. We're happy to see whether it will help us do business properly on behalf of Europe, but we will not allow a two-speed Europe to be created. Tony Blair has made this very clear. BUONADONNA: Along with France, the UK is already part of an early example of enhanced co-operation, the rapid reaction defence force. But Britain has refused to go along with another example, the Single Currency. The French argue that it's up to each country to decide what speed it wants to travel at. LELLOUCHE: Mr Blair is in the driving engine for defence, so he know, he knows it's a two-speed Europe, except that he's in the first speed on defence. He doesn't want to be in the second speed on currency, but if he's not on the, on the currency, it's his choice. BUONADONNA: Whatever's agreed at Nice will put in a new treaty which all the leaders will sign early next year. But it will still have to be ratified by the British Parliament. The Government might choose to postpone introducing legislation until after the General Election. But it can't stop the Conservative Party making Europe a key election issue. CAMPBELL: If the Labour Government is defensive about the Treaty of Nice, then it will create circumstances in which the European issue will be used to the government's disadvantage, indeed to the disadvantage of all pro-European parties in the forthcoming general election. The Government must get on to the front foot. VAZ: We're quite prepared to stand up and put the facts before the people. What we will not allow to happen any more, is that the myths will be able to go unchallenged. It's time we dealt with these myths. It just so happens to come now, but ministers over the last three-and-a-half years have been fully engaged with what's happening in Europe. BUONADONNA: As the three gallant British ministers, led by Keith Vaz, brazened their way around Bratislava, they were left in no doubt about Slovakia's desire to join the EU. But as they prepared to ride out of town, they knew the Conservatives would be lying in ambush back home. Both the government and the opposition are committed to enlargement, but the Conservatives are determined to exploit any concessions made to achieve that goal. HUMPHRYS: Paola Buonadonna reporting there. JOHN HUMPHRYS: Francis Maude, enlargement is a matter of principle as far as the Conservative Party is concerned. That's the case isn't it? And you want it to happen sooner rather than later? FRANCIS MAUDE: Yes, absolutely. We've been urging this very strongly for years and we think it's really important. This is a divide which has disfigured the European continent now for fifty years. I remember back in nineteen-ninety we were saying to the countries of central and eastern Europe, you should be able to join the European Union in five years. Now ten years on they're complaining, we're saying to them it's still five years on. HUMPHRYS: In that case one has to wonder about your attitude to what's going on in Nice this week, because your policies are positively self-defeating. The policies that you're adopting would make it impossible for that enlargement to happen. These reforms that you're opposing must happen in order for that enlargement to take place. MAUDE: No. Simply not the case. That's what's being peddled. That's the myth that's being peddled at the moment, but it is simply isn't true. None of this is about, with the exception of a couple of things which we would support, can be said to be about enlargement. The thing which is most damaging to the spirit of European unity, which is the proposal to get rid of the veto in a whole lot more areas is nothing to do with enlargement at all. It's actually to do with - nakedly to do with the programme of political integration - driving the politics of Europe much more closely together by force rather than by co-operation. It's not to do with enlargement. HUMPHRYS: But you're not opposed to getting rid of vetoes as a matter of principle. Again, are you - qualified majority voting as it's called, more qualified majority voting, you're not opposed to that in principle are you? MAUDE: Well no. But we are saying that at this stage the - it's the wrong thing for Europe to be doing. As a part of our relentless one-way street towards ever closer political integration it is actually something that will cause division and discord in Europe and that's why we say that is the wrong thing to be doing. Extending the areas where the majority can enforce, can impose their will on the minority is just the wrong thing to do. It will actually be divisive not unifying. HUMPHRYS: Well, it's funny how you've changed you mind on that, because it's not that long ago back at Maastricht you supported thirty changes towards QNV from the veto. MAUDE: Well, it is quite a long time ago actually. It's eight years ago, and Europe....... HUMPHRYS: Well, what's changed in that time? MAUDE: Well, the shape of Europe is very different now and the tenor of public opinion is very different, and in any event I do have to reject this notion that because one's agreed a lot of qualified majority voting up till now, therefore you must be in favour of it continuing ever further. It's like saying, you know, you've walked to the end of the pier it must therefore make sense to carry on walking. Of course it can't be right. The fact is that it's the wrong thing for Europe to be doing, and you know, some of these areas are matters of great concern. It is in fact my experience with the Maastricht Treaty that makes me of all people particularly concerned about this endless process of further integration because I've seen how some things which in the eighties and the early nineties we agreed to in the best of good faith have turned out with hindsight to have been over-interpreted by the European courts and the European competencies have been extended further and further well beyond what we envisaged when we signed these things, and that does make me and a lot of other people very cautious indeed about proceeding any further. HUMPHRYS: Well, yes that is interesting because at first sight at any rate many of the things that you are now opposing are the sorts of things that you approved of at Maastricht. MAUDE: Well, that is exactly my point, that a lot of these things have been used to extend the powers of the European Union into areas that weren't envisaged. HUMPHRYS: So you were na�ve in Maastricht were you. I mean you got it wrong? MAUDE: Well, I wouldn't say we'd got it wrong but perhaps we were na�ve. Perhaps we were na�ve when we signed the Single European Act, when we accepted all the assurances that these were going to be limited competencies which the European Commission and then the European Court of Justice has steadily extended, and so I think perhaps we are a little concerned that Britain doesn't go down the same path again. HUMPHRYS: Let me give you an example of the sorts of things that are up for qualified majority voting, that are being considered for qualified majority voting at Nice. Changing the rules of procedure of the Court of Auditors. Now complex stuff obviously, but hardly life-threatening. You're not opposed to that are you? MAUDE: Well, you wouldn't say that that's life-threatening in itself, of course you wouldn't. You wouldn't say that that's the end of the world if that happens. But there is a general concern here that all of this agenda goes in one direction, in the direction of further political integration and I make again the general point that if there was a balanced agenda here with some areas being decided, discussed, being apt for more decision-taking being made by the member states, but some other things, the veto might be considered for being got rid of, then I would be much more relaxed about it, because it would be a balanced agenda. This is not a balanced agenda. This is actually all about relentless political integration, and I'll give you just one example of that. If this summit, if this treaty was genuinely about enabling enlargement to happen then there would be one big item on the agenda which isn't there at all, and that's reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. That is what's actually holding up enlargement. It's a massive road block on the path to enlargement. Tony Blair has said he's very much in favour of reforming it but has he got that on the agenda for Nice, to really enable enlargement to happen? He hasn't even asked for it to be on the agenda. HUMPHRYS: There wouldn't be a lot of point. There wouldn't be a lot of point as far as that one is concerned because without qualified majority voting you'd get absolutely nothing. We've seen over and over again - why forecast what has happened when you can look in the history book. I mean there is no point in even trying it without dropping vetoes on that particular one. MAUDE: Well there isn't any proposal to drop the veto on that one. There's no proposal that it should happen. HUMPHRYS: So would you say yes to that? If that were proposed, would you say yes let's abandon our veto, let's lose our veto on that particular area if it were proposed? MAUDE: Well there already is a lot of qualified majority voting in relation to agriculture. I mean the idea that this is all unanimity is simply not the case but let's be clear about it, if there was a general will, a real determination, a political will to seize the destiny that European enlargement offers then countries would be ready to tackle the difficulties that lie with agricultural reform. But actually what I sense, everywhere I go round Europe is that the imperative to go for enlargement is weakening. There's a growing sense of resentment and betrayal in the countries of the east of Europe and Central Europe, people who say, 'well hang on... we've been lead on, we've been encouraged to reform on the basis that there was this prize if you like of European Union membership coming up soon at the end of it and now it's constantly being pushed back. It's always five years ahead.' And I think now's the time, I think if Tony Blair is really ready to be a leader in Europe he would actually be insisting that our partners face this and those who aren't prepared to embrace the changes that are needed, especially the changes to the Common Agricultural Policy that are needed to enable enlargement to happen, that they shouldn't actually carry the blame for it. I find it a bit hard that the Conservative Party in opposition is being accused as being the barrier to enlargement when all we're doing is saying that enlargement doesn't require relentless political integration. What enlargement requires is more flexibility. It requires a looser, more modern European Union of the type we've been advocating for some time. HUMPHRYS: But you're making it impossible by objecting to really very, or at least on the face of it, very trivial issues for anything to happen, for anything to change in that direction. Whatever way you go you're going to be stuck because of this veto and I mean you'll accept it, you'll accept losing the veto on relatively big areas, very big areas indeed like agriculture, but you're putting the block or would like to put a block on many more smaller things. It seems odd. MAUDE: Yes but actually just to take your argument back to where you started John, the idea that having a veto on changes to the rules for the European Court of Auditors, the idea that that's necessary to enable enlargement to happen is simply absurd.... (talking together) ...to see how absurd it is. HUMPHRYS: It's a matter of getting the business done isn't it, that's the point. And if you have an endless series of veto's you can't get business done and then you cannot extend the Union. This is the argument: It would just simply be impossible. The whole thing would run into the sand. MAUDE: Well I understand the argument. I think it's wrong for this reason: That's what's being said is that it's very difficult to get all of these decisions taken through the mincing machine. The mincing machine keeps bunging up. The right answer to that is not to put, as it were, a more powerful engine on the mincing machine and make it go faster and just grind everything up more quickly, the answer is to try and put a bit less into the mincing machine in the first place so there are fewer decisions that the European Union should be taking. There are more decisions that should be taken by the member states, that's actually what most people in this country want. That's the mainstream majority of the public in this country want to see that kind of European Union. And it's also.... can I just make this point because I think it's important. It's also the kind of European Union the modern world requires. We're moving into a new age, a network world where physical geography matters less, where much more is going to be done by networks and where there'll be a real premium on flexibility. It's absurd for the European Union to be committing itself to ever more rigidity to this sort of outdated dogma of one size fits all integration when the world requires something more modern and more flexible. HUMPHRYS: Ah well, that's exactly the point I wanted to raise with you, because you are very much in support of the much more flexible Europe, so that if one group of countries, or one country, wants to move ahead of the others then they should be allowed to do so, and if Britain said alright, we'll stay out of EMU or whatever it happens to be, we can do so. In practice though, you would make that more difficult, if not impossible because you want to keep a veto which would allow one country to stop the other countries moving ahead, so again, you are cutting off your nose to spite your face. MAUDE: No, we're not, in fact our view of this is that we are very relaxed indeed about other countries' going ahead with deeper integration amongst themselves if that's what they want to do. It's not something that we would want to do, nor something the majority of the public here would want to see happen. But we don't froth at the mouth about it and get anxious about it, we do however say that Britain should have a right of veto over it, even if we say, as I absolutely clearly do, that we would not expect to be exercising that veto. You need to be absolutely sure that such a process of integration can't be used to damage Britain's interest, I'd find it hard to envisage circumstances where it might, but you can imagine circumstances, and we should retain the veto against that eventuality. HUMPHRYS: Well, you've been able... MAUDE: ...but the other point is this, the other argument is this, that you shouldn't give up that veto without there being some significant changes in return for it, some significant moves towards the kind of modern, multi-systems, more flexible European Union, that we are arguing for. HUMPHRYS: Your difficulty with this whole Europe issue, which is supposed to be your strong suit, I mean, if one of the things that, that you will be using in the General Election campaign to prove to the people of this country that you've got a better plan for Britain than the Labour party, but you're being undermined all the time, aren't you, by the sorts of things that we see happening within your own party, still see happening with your own party: people back-biting, briefing against each other, the kind of thing we've seen this last week, I discovered in one of the newspapers, the Times I think, it was only on Friday the sorts of things that you were going to be telling me today, I didn't know about, I didn't know I was going to ask you questions about. Somebody's been briefing against you. It's damaging for you, isn't it? You've got to stop it, haven't you? MAUDE: Yes we have. Absolutely have. We have to recognise that, you know, the Conservative Party doesn't belong to any of us who are in it, it actually belongs to the nation. It's the longest standing, most successful, political party in the history of democracy, and we have been that, and we can be that, because we belong to the country, we exist to serve the nation, not to serve any individuals within the party, and we have a duty, actually, to get ourselves seriously together to campaign vigorously for what we believe in, which I believe is what the majority of the public believe in, and to make that case vigorously we cannot let the case against this government go by default, nor the case for the kind of values for which we speak, which are deep values of this country, go by default. We've got to get ourselves absolutely together, fight with each other against Labour for what we believe in. HUMPHRYS: Francis Maude, thank you very much indeed. MAUDE: Thank you. HUMPHRYS: I was talking to Mr Maude a little bit earlier this morning. JOHN HUMPHRYS: The Agriculture Minister Nick Brown is going to Brussels tomorrow for a meeting with other European ministers to decide what to do about BSE, mad cow disease. It's now affecting the whole of Europe ... not just us. The question they're facing is whether to bring in the sort of controls that we've seen in this country... or go even further. On Wednesday there was a meeting of the European Veterinary Scientific Committee which discussed a ban on including fish meal and bits of chickens in animal feed. British vets at the meeting opposed the ban. So what happens now? Mr Brown is with me - good afternoon Mr Brown. BROWN: I think I should make it clear that British vets ONLY opposed the ban because the Commission asked us to so that the issue could be dealt with by ministers rather than at the Veterinary Committee. It's not a policy decision. HUMPHRYS: So they didn't look at the science of it, which was my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, they looked at the science of it and thought independently of whatever they had or might not have been asked to do - but this wasn't the right thing to do, to oppose this ban? BROWN: No, that isn't what happened. It's purely a technical decision so that the issue can be dealt with by ministers on Monday rather than be dealt within the Veterinary Committee. That was the only reason and they did it at the Commission's request. HUMPHRYS: Do we not know what their view is then on this one? BROWN: Yes we do and in fact we're supporting the Commission..... HUMPHRYS: No... no... I mean the view of the scientists. BROWN: The view at the Veterinary Committee was that the Commission are right to be extending the controls, controls remember that we've had in place here since 1996 to the rest of the European Union but the Commission believe, and I think our own veterinary officials were right on this, that the decision should be made by ministers not in an administrative sub-committee of the European Union, albeit a very important one. HUMPHRYS: So what is our view? BROWN: Our view is that we support the Commission's call for measures across the European Union. Remember we're trying to do two things: Above all we're trying to protect the public, the European Union's public from variant Creutzfeld Jacob's Disease. We're trying to prevent the spread of BSE in European Union herds and thirdly, and this point often gets overlooked but it's of fundamental importance, we're trying not only to exterminate BSE but to prevent a recurrence. HUMPHRYS: So in practical terms what will change as a result of tomorrow's decision? I mean I'm assuming that tomorrow's decision from what you're telling me is more or less a fait accompli. I mean that is it: The Commission says 'do it - it will be done' because you'll agree with what the Commission says BROWN: A majority of member states are in favour of the broad thrust of the Commission's proposals. Although there may be some discussion around the details, essentially the Commission are taking actions that are very similar although admittedly not identical to the ones that were taken here back in nineteen ninety-six. It's a feed stuffs ban in other words. The feed stuffs no longer contain, will be allowed to contain not just.... It's not just a ruminant feed ban, they're also proposing an exclusion of fish meal, the exclusion of protein derived from poultry as well and that's a very significant decision and allied to their proposals for a thirty month scheme, not quite the same as the one we have here - that all animals are either tested if they're over thirty months for BSE or they are kept out of the food chain is the proposal, and of course any animal that fails the test will be kept out of the food chain, and these are pretty powerful measures. HUMPHRYS: And don't they go a bit beyond what we're doing at the moment, because at the moment, am I not right in thinking, farmers can if they wish feed cows, talking particularly about ruminants talking about cows, stuff like fish meal and meal that you get from grinding up chickens even chicken feathers I gather. At the moment they can do that. BROWN: You're right, the poultry derived protein and fish meal derived protein is still used in animal feed stuffs here, that's still lawful just as it's lawful at the moment throughout the European Union. The Commission's proposal is not to do that: In other words they're going beyond the scientific advice available to ministers and clearly that's something we want to explore with them tomorrow. But if it comes down to going... to having to going further than the scientists advise or not doing anything at all I can tell you that Britain will be voting to go further. HUMPHRYS: To go further. So in other words even though the scientists may say 'we think it's okay to feed bits of fish and bits of chickens to cows,' you, on behalf of Britain would say, 'We don't. We do not want to do that.'? BROWN: Look, I want to listen to what my colleagues have to say. I think it is absolutely right that we try and get a decision, a single decision that will work for the whole of the European Union, but if it's a choice between taking action or not taking action then we're going to take action and do so on Monday. HUMPHRYS: Right. So to be quite clear about this, it's your view as Agriculture Minister of this country, it's your view that it is not generally a good idea to feed bits of meat of any sort, whether we're talking fish or chicken or whatever it is to cows, that would normally not eat it in other words? BROWN: I mean actually you're right - that probably is the underpinning principle behind the Commission's proposal but it goes further than the science and I've said repeatedly that the decisions that our government makes in this area will be based on the science but this is a discussion amongst colleagues in the European Union and if the other member states wish to take the Commission's proposal as it is without amendment then we will too - even if it goes further than the science, strictly speaking. HUMPHRYS: Why, why are you so hung up on what the scientists say. I mean, you might say well it's the only guide we've got. But if you look at a wee bit of history, you don't have to go back terribly far, we discovered that actually, a lot of the things that the scientists said we could do, we should never have done. BROWN: Well, I mean, I have the Phillips Report now to guide me in all of this and one of the points that Lord Phillips makes in his report is that politicians can't shuffle off their responsibilities. He uses more elegant language than that, but that what he means by calling for yet another scientific enquiry, or waiting until the science is certain, and that is why I say if it's a choice between going further than the scientific advice or making no decision, then we will have to go further than the scientific advise. It is essential that we bear down on BSE in the European herd, it is essential that we protect European citizens from the horrors of Variant Creutzfeld Jacobs disease and I am determined to do that. HUMPHRYS: How much of this is to do with, putting aside the science for the moment, with simply restoring public confidence, because there's no doubt, public confidence has been absolutely shattered. BROWN: Well, I think one of the thinkings behind the introduction of the thirty months scheme is to deal with the impact that the loss of public confidence has had on the market-place in the European Union, in other words, animals that are not particularly the older animals, that are just not being purchased, will be able to go into the scheme, and frankly, that's a market intervention. HUMPHRYS: Some of the blame in this whole area, and I mean there has been blame flying around in all directions, has been directed at us, from the French in particular, for exporting what they regard as dodgy animal feed. Are they right to blame us? BROWN: Well, it is true that animal feed that was banned for sale in Britain was still allowed to be sold abroad and some of it was purchased in France. But the people who purchased it would have known that it was banned for sale here, I think looking back on it, that the, that the government was wrong to allow that to happen, and indeed the Phillips Report sets out the circumstances. But, frankly, looking from nation state to nation state for other countries to blame is not the right way to deal with this. HUMPHRYS: No, but it .... BROWN: ...there isn't a nationalistic solution to the problems of BSE, the prion protein doesn't know national boundaries. What we've got to do is to make sure that we've got thorough public protection measures, and separately, thorough animal protection measures, in place, throughout the European Union, and that's what we're setting out to do. HUMPHRYS: But it has, but it has come down to a nationalistic thing, hasn't it? I mean, it frequently does where France and this country are concerned. I mean, they are still refusing to lift their ban on our beef. Well, when you look at the sort of things we've just been talking about, it's quite easy to understand why they want to do that, isn't it? BROWN: No, the date-based export scheme is for under thirty month beef, it's de-boned, er, it has been inspected by just about every veterinary official that has wanted to come and inspect it, we are being completely open about the way in which we are operating it. It has been approved unanimously by the scientific committee that advises the European Union, the Council of Ministers have said that it's well-founded in law, and that it is right to lift the ban, so the French are wrong on the science and wrong on the law. They ought to lift their ban. HUMPHRYS: Well if, well if, if they won't accept our assurances that our beef is safe... BROWN: ...this isn't our assurance... HUMPHRYS: ...well alright no... BOTH SPEAKING TOGETHER BROWN: ...it's the European Union's Assurance... HUMPHRYS: ...withdraw the word 'our'... BOTH SPEAKING TOGETHER BROWN: ...I mean on the one hand they're protesting like mad... HUMPHRYS: ...yeah... BROWN: ...that other countries are taking national measures against France... HUMPHRYS: ...okay... BROWN: ...and yet, and yet they've gone ahead and taken national measures against us. HUMPHRYS: Well, given that, given that they won't accept the assurances that our beef is safe, why do we accept their assurances that their beef is safe? BROWN: Now, we know, we know the instance of BSE currently in France is at very low level, that is why we are discussing across the European Union what public protection measures it is necessary to put in place across the European Union to safeguard the European Union's herds and at the same time to safeguard the public. But remember we already have very powerful public protection measures in place in this country and specifically of course the fact that it is unlawful to sell any beef derived from animals over thirty months, whether from France, or from Ireland, or from within the UK or anywhere else... HUMPHRYS: ...but your colleague... BROWN: ...in the European Union... HUMPHRYS: But your colleague in France, the French minister Mr de Glavany doesn't seem to think so He said what was it: "Conduct the same test to your cattle as we're conducting to ours, after that we shall see". BROWN: Well the testing regime of course will apply throughout the European Union including here. What it won't apply to is to animals that are over thirty months, although we do test some for experimental purposes we're not going to test every single animal that is destined for the incinerator. They are - none of them go into the food chain. That is why it's such a powerful public protection measure, but in terms of the testing regime we have an extensive testing regime for the purposes of seeing how far BSE had spread in the ageing herd in place now, and as I said to the French on a number of occasions, we're more than happy to share the fruits of our testing regime with them and with anyone else HUMPHRYS: The trouble is from your point of view and from our point of view it isn't just the French who are worried about it is it. I mean the French have their ban certainly but we're seeing an increasing number of politicians in Germany, the lenders and now the regions in Germany are now saying to the German government, the federal government, look, we need this EU-wide ban on British beef reinstated. I mean that's going to be a problem for you. BROWN: I know politicians in this country who take the same nationalistic view. Listen to William Hague and Tim Yeo saying that all French beef should be banned. It's their equivalents in Germany who are saying that all British beef should be banned. We're not going to be able to deal with this in nationalistic terms and it is a mistake to try. HUMPHRYS: You must be worried though about this movement now in Germany. I mean it is building up isn't it? BROWN: Well, I think it would be absolutely wrong for the German government to try to impose a ban on British beef through the date-based export scheme, but remember the quantities of beef that we sold to Germany historically were very, very small... HUMPHRYS: That's not the point though is it, the size.... BROWN: It's not as if there's some great practical issue being tested here HUMPHRYS: No, but that isn't the point is it, how much they buy from us. It's the message it sends. I mean if we were to find that the French stick to their ban as they intend to do clearly, the Germans manage to get it reinstated, then good heavens, we're back to where we were. BROWN: But the issue is to protect the public throughout Europe, not try to get into a series of bilateral trade wars, product by product and state by state. That would be a mistake, and the solution will be found in a European Union context. HUMPHRYS: Nick Brown, thank you very much indeed. And that's it for this week. For those of you on the Internet don't forget our Web-site. Until the same time next week, Good Afternoon. 22 FoLdEd
NB. This transcript was typed from a transcription unit recording and not copied from an original script. Because of the possibility of mis-hearing and the difficulty, in some cases, of identifying individual speakers, the BBC cannot vouch for its accuracy.